Yeah he fits in well with the aceplace and urbanredneck types.
I was stripped of my mentor too soon …
GIGObuster … no knowledge, can’t learn … copy/paste machine.
So you are not vouching for the veracity of a cite, but you think it backs up one position over another. Did you read the part of the Wiki article that said Magee’s claims were undocumented and controversial? Do you think that part backs up anyone’s claim?
Regards,
Shodan
Of course the part of the Wiki that says the claims were undocumented and controversial don’t support the claim that Magee was a slave.
However, I can find the “undocumented and controversial” comments and/or references within the bulk of the article. The “strongest” evidence is the article by Jet, which, since I don’t actually know the magazine and its trustworthiness, is, at best, indirect evidence.
All in all, the article tips, lightly, towards confirming the claim that Magee was a slave, since it doesn’t actually provide me with sources that deny the claim.
I definitely wouldn’t use the article as a cite to attack the contention that the last slave died in the 1970’s.
I held off, but I’ll drop a few names in the hat.
LinusK for “economics” and “feminism”, but mostly for advancing the same arguments repeatedly in the face of overwhelming evidence. He seems to believe if he just says it enough times, it will become true.
Chief Pedant for racism and racist debates.
Monty for calling me out when I drop into text typing instead of full sentences. I’m using a tablet. Shit happens. 
(Right. This one’s not that serious.)
Regarding Bricker, I think he rounds out the Board. I do notice that he’ll jump to a conclusion about an assertion that I or others have made (which would be that we’re wrong, when the evidence isn’t immediately obvious because it occurred earlier in the thread or required reading another thread. I will also grant that he does acknowledge reality when presented with evidence, unlike another I have previously noted.
Typo: However, I can find[…]
Should read: However, I cannot find
Please substitute “misogyny” for “feminism” to make the meaning clearer.
I like and respect Bricker and Drunky Smurf is pretty damn funny.
Then you did exactly what D’Anconia did.
monstro or somebody made a claim, for which there is very little evidence. D’Anconia pointed out that the story was just a story, and had no hard evidence to back it up, and pretty hard evidence that another claim made by the same person was very probably false. And Left Hand of Dorkness got snippy because D’Anconia wouldn’t back down on his skepticism, based on no hard evidence at all.
The claim doesn’t have to be disproved. It has to be proved. No real proof has been supplied.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know exactly when this happened, but I used to have Drunky Smurf filed away as a low-rent Vinyl Turnip: trying the same one-liner game, but not able to quite pull it off as well. However, lately, he seems to just be a carbon copy right-winger like davida03801.
Eh, Drunky, the human Bronx Cheer? I can take him or leave him, depending on how I feel about whoever he’s sneering at this hour.
OK. I finally get it.
This list of bold type names is a congratulatory to those that make SDMB the beautiful place it is.
Where would we be without them?
Saludos
I’d add Stringbean of cavernous vagina fame, and I’ll second LinusK, not so much for the misogyny as the sheer, unrelenting stupidity.
Oh, and Shodan, for general assholishness.
Many antifeminists are accused of just arguing on the Internet instead of helping men. Accuse me.
LinusK is a lawyer. A criminal defense lawyer who saves tens of mostly innocent men from hundreds of years of incarceration and supports his family is not a loser. This is a position many of us can envy.
I am only a Homo Interneticus Smartphonicus. A cyborg is a further step in evolution – they have electronics embedded in them and a direct connection to the Internet.
And that’s exactly what I don’t get.
- Somebody made a claim
- According to a Wikipedia page (cited) there is actually no claim against it. Actually a magazine claims there is hard evidence which, so far, has not been refuted. Well, I don’t find evidence telling us that the hard evidence is not real
- D’Anconia disregarded point 2 completely. And didn’t actually reference it, but another claim entirely (unlikely age)
There is a possibility to refute the “hard” claim: go to the County and ask for the information. If it isn’t there, the magazine lied.
Charlie Wayne hasn’t posted since getting a warning last month. Either he was devastated by the warning and is staying away out of shame, or the Doper responsible for the “Charlie Wayne” character pulled the plug to avoid further scrutiny from the moderators. I’m leaning toward the latter.
He’s more or less admitted to that:
**Bricker **is a net value to the board, I’d say. His law expertise is useful.
That said, when his ideology is in play, he’s willing to post dishonestly. But given his value, I’d say he’s not one of the worst posters.
**Clothy **is a shrieking mental deficient, now that’s a guy that doesn’t bring anything useful. No entertainment value.
You’ll have book #4 written in no time!
My only issue with Bricker is that when he gets started with his legal/linguistic/whatever wrangling in a thread, it ends up overwhelming the whole discussion. He doesn’t really hijack threads as much as smother them.
My personal worst-of-the-worst isn’t really the worst, but is bad enough that I paid for a custom title to try and forestall the inevitable confusion between me and him. (I was here first, dammit!)